VidLens

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mediaStoreHealth

Check local media store health by verifying disk usage, asset counts, and ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability to prevent video processing disruptions.

Instructions

Check health of the local media store: disk usage, asset counts, ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability. [~instant]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mediaStoreHealth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.8Apr 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses specific subsystems checked (disk, assets, external binaries) and performance characteristics (~instant), but omits safety profile, return format, and side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence front-loaded with action and resource. '[~instant]' tag is efficient metadata. No redundant text; every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lists inspection targets adequately for a simple health tool, but given lack of output schema, it fails to describe return structure or format. Missing explicit differentiation from 'checkSystemHealth' given the sibling relationship.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters present. Per rubric, empty schema with 100% coverage (vacuously) warrants baseline 4. Description appropriately requires no parameter explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'Check' and specific resource 'local media store' with enumerated aspects (disk usage, asset counts, ffmpeg/yt-dlp availability). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'checkSystemHealth', leaving selection ambiguity despite different naming.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides only a performance hint '[~instant]' suggesting fast execution. No explicit guidance on when to use versus 'checkSystemHealth', prerequisites, or operational contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.